Undertaking a thesis is, for most people, one of the most stimulating and yet daunting of adult challenges that they are likely to ever undertake.  It is at once a demanding, testing, extending, intensely frustrating and singularly consuming process.  It can also be a life altering, hugely inspiring and deeply rewarding challenge for those who undertake the journey especially when they emerge from the process with their research and writing targets achieved.  You see, somewhere along the way, the thesis process inculcates in the candidate, a lifelong curatorship of scholarship – it initiates access to a treasure-trove of thinking qualities which can, in similar vein, be passed on to others when the candidate eventually becomes a mentor.  At the same time, these attributes potentially enable a raft of lifestyle rewards.  However, thesis candidates do not automatically have access to these – they must first undertake an apprenticeship of scholarship and they must be carefully supported through that process. 

This means that thesis candidates need to be absolutely sure that there is realistic support from a range of significant others including immediate family[1], employers, colleagues, friends and, naturally, the bank!  But at the same time, there is also a need to have realistic confidence in those who supervise and typically these days, thesis candidates have a duo of supervisors or, sometimes, even a trio of overseers.  Having confidence in teams who watch over thesis matters is, therefore, really very important, especially given the huge amount of time expended by candidates and the mountain of finances they outlay and forego. 

Some supervisors, of course, know their subject matter really well and others are deep thinkers.  Still others are wonderful at generating ideas.  Whilst some readily gauge and appraise the big picture, yet others have a keen eye for the pickiest of detail.  Still other supervisors are wonderful writers and some are fastidious editors.  And some supervisors are a blend of caring and cajoling; they know when to comfort and when to goad. 

In other words, the talents of supervisors differ greatly.  They need to vary because assembling a thesis is a complex challenge.  Ideally, therefore, supervisors should be realistic in detailing their skills and they should also be candid in confessing about matters that challenge them.  Indeed, wise supervisors are well aware of gaps in their academic schema and they are unafraid of divulging skill gaps.  They will admit to shortcomings in order to help their protégés access help from other sources as necessary.  Hence, such forthrightness from supervisors demonstrates academic integrity; it reveals that by disposition they are concerned teachers who proudly remain ongoing learners.  They are authentic mentors.

In our experience, regrettably, the standard of supervision is not what it should be and this appears to be so across many, if not most, of our tertiary institutions.  Less than satisfactory supervision also seems to be commonplace within many overseas institutions.  We have found that people who visit our Woodhill Park Research Retreat have often recounted their experiences of supervisors who dominate proceedings entirely, but equally, we have been told of far too many instances of laissez faire.  We hear examples of flip-flop advice and of candidates being inexplicably dropped off the radar – especially by academics going on sabbatical.  In each of these instances, professional neglect seems to be at work.

Our stance at the Woodhill Park Retreat, therefore, is quite clear.  We will help thesis candidates when they have been neglected and a fair number of people approach us because that has been the case.  Preferably, however, we want to work openly with candidates and their supervisors which means that we favour all stakeholders knowing and appreciating that we offer services that are supplemental rather than instead of.  After all, thesis candidates who come to us are already paying their host institution and they are entitled to receive the supervision for which they have paid - quantity and quality wise! 

Ideally, when a student is referred to us by a supervisor, we would like the referring agency to pay for our services but in some instances, academic institutions can be quite precious about such matters and they seldom, if ever budget for such eventualities.  (One way around this, of course, is for the supervisor and the student to visit us together.)  However, when the institution will not recompense us for services provided, we have no option but to ask the student to pay for whatever services they receive.